Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Parapsychology

Request for input in discussion forum

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

_{Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011}

Ganzfeld experiment article edits

Hello everybody!

Recently, I have dealt with the existing ganzfeld research in some detail and I find the Wikipedia article on it quite one-sided. I plan to do some edits to it, and would like to invite you all to an open discussion about it, so we can improve the article. I will discuss the changes I make here, and I will appreciate your feedback.

PS. I am new to Wikipedia, so I will welcome any suggestions.

Thanks

Change number 1 - Bem and Honorton autoganzfeld experiments protocol quality claim

– Before my edit, the article stated: "In 1990 Honorton et al. published the results of 11 autoganzfeld experiments they claimed met the standards specified by Hyman and Honorton (1986)."

– I find this a bit misleading, because the experimental protocol was reviewed by many researchers, including sceptics and all agreed with its security. It is thus not only a claim by Bem and Honorton. (The question if the controls were in fact kept is discussed later in the criticism of the study.)

– Thus the new text is: "In 1990 Honorton et al. published the results of 11 autoganzfeld experiments they claimed met the standards specified by Hyman and Honorton (1986).[1] Bem and Honorton noted that "The experimental protocol was examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers. All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls.""

– I also added the actual hit rate results of the 11 experiments.

Change number 2 - Hyman's critique of Bem and Honorton (1994)

– I find this section a bit chaotic. First, Bem and Honorton's experiments are mentioned, then Hyman's critique, Bem and Honorton again, then a newer meta-analysis of 30 studies by Milton and Wiseman, then a repeated statement of Bem and Honorton that their experiments had good security measures, and Hyman's critique again.

– I thus rearranged the paragraphs so that they are consistent in time and narrative, and deleted the repetitive statements. I reformulated Hyman's criticism based on his 1994 comment with a more clear delineation of his main points. (I added one important point showing the inconsistency of Bem and Honorton's experiments with older ganzfeld studies).

Larch150 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Because the experimental protocol was reviewed by many researchers, including sceptics and all agreed with its security", this is basically unsupported nonsense and undue weight to a fringe view from Bem and Honorton (two psi believers). Scientists and Skeptics such as David Marks, Terence Hines, Nicholas Humphrey, Richard Wiseman etc have looked at the experimental protocol and pointed out sensory leakage problems. List of skeptics please who agree with those experiments and sources for this claim? None exist.

"The experimental protocol was examined by several dozen parapsychologists and behavioral researchers from other fields, including well-known critics of parapsychology. Many have participated as subjects or observers All have expressed satisfaction with the handling of security issues and controls." Again this is seriously undue. This is a fringe claim and again just nonsense. I do not know of a single skeptic who is happy with those experiments, it is possible to cite about six books and papers that found errors in those experiments. If you believe there is critics of parapsychology supporting those experiments then cite a source other than fringe proponents and psi believers such as Bem and Honorton. Skeptic5757 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Dean Radin's personal website is not a reliable source and your other edits look like original research. Skeptic5757 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skeptic5757, thanks for the feedback.

1. I agree with deleting the claim by Bem and Honorton.

2. I linked Dean Radin's page because it was the only place where I found Hyman's paper available online.

3. What specifically about my edits "looks like original research"? You have reverted all my edits, including:

* the overall hit rate of Bem and Honorton's (1994) 11 experiments

* Hyman's critique of the inconsistency in Bem and Honorton's (1994) experiments - static targets had an overall insignificant rate, only dynamic targets had significant rate (and their hit rates included some patterns indicating sensory leakage)

* Hyman's claim that the Bem and Honorton experiments satisfy most, but not all of the "stringent standards" of the 1986 communiqué (see Hyman, 1994, p. 19)

How do these edits constitute original research? They are taken directly from the articles I cite.

Larch150 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: as no reply was posted within a week, I reverted Skeptic5757's edit. I deleted the above mentioned claim by Bem and Honorton.

Larch150 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more appropriate to talk about this on Talk:Ganzfeld experiment, so the other people who are now editing that article don't have to go digging to find this discussion here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, discussion moved. Larch150 (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Question (for anyone who might be listening): I think it might be handy for editors to have ready access to a bibliography of parapsychology papers that have appeared in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. Where would be the most appropriate place for such listing? A user sandbox? A subpage of this wikiproject? an article? Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please come and help...

A requested move has been relisted at Talk:Ectoplasm (paranormal)#Requested move 17 May 2018. Your rationale and !vote to support or oppose this page move would be greatly appreciated! Painius ^put'r there 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]